Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Powick Bridge

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Eddie891 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Powick Bridge[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Harrias (talk)

Battle of Powick Bridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Battle of Powick Bridge was, of itself, a minor affair. Both sides had in the region of 1,000 mounted soldiers, a mix of cavalry and dragoons. A detachment of the Parliamentarian field army had been sent to try and secure a Royalist silver convoy, which Prince Rupert had been sent to protect. The Parliamentarians bungled across Rupert's troops, who themselves were resting in a field without their armour. There is some disagreement about whether Rupert had set much a guard, but he had the better of the ground: the Parliamentarians were funnelled into a narrow lane. Rupert dispensed with the more common tactic at the time of using cavalry as a mobile firing platform, and instead "charged" his men at the opponents, breaking all but one troop. The skirmish was soon won by Rupert's Royalists, and Rupert's reputation as a cavalry commander was established.

As always, all thoughts, comments and criticisms are welcome. Harrias talk 12:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

All images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 22:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass[edit]

Comments Support by Zawed[edit]

This article is in great shape, I only have a few minor comments:

Build-up of the First English Civil War

  • many historians believe these events made civil war inevitable. this is cited to Gaunt; I just want to make sure he is saying "many historians" here and there aren't supposed to be more cites here for other historians?
  • he fielded between a quarter and half as many men as Essex to give some context, if the sources allow, suggest indicating the size of Essex's field army.
  • ...Royalist regiments being raised in the Wales... delete the

Prelude

Aftermath

  • Their relation of the battle... not crazy on this phrasing. How about "Their account of the battle..."

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zawed, responses above. Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good, happy to support this now. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

I'll take a look at this soon. Hog Farm Bacon 16:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this at GA, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's not much for me to pick on in the second round.

Lead
Sir John Byron's convoy
Battle
Infobox
  • You give Royalist strength at 1,000, but it looks like they had a bit more: 160 with Byron, and then another 1,000 with Rupert.

That's it, very tidy little article. Hog Farm Bacon 00:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Hog Farm, replies above. Harrias (he/him) • talk 05:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Which to me reinforces my qualms. "Despite the manoeuvrings between the King and Parliament, there remained an illusion that the two sides were still governing the country together." IMO the two halves of this sentence do not fit well together, but we can thrash it out at FAC.
  • "in between the King and London". Optional: delete "in".
  • "where he hoped to assemble the Royalist regiments". "assemble"? Do you mean something like 'join with', or 'gain the reinforcement of'?
  • "and the north- and south-west of England" "north-" If you mean north-west - and I am unsure if you do - I suggest you use that instead. (Or is it a typo?)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Gog the Mild, replied to most, still pondering a couple. Harrias (he/him) • talk 05:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Dragoons were mounted infantry, armed with muskets". You got a solid source for that? I have one which states that at this period dragoons were simply infantry, mounted to facilitate operational mobility and included pikemen.
    • @Gog the Mild: Yeah, pretty robust sources: the one in the article, Roberts, Keith; Tincey, John (2001). Edgehill 1642: The First Battle of the English Civil War. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1-85532-991-3. states "The other type of soldier was the Dragoon, a musketeer mounted on a cheap horse." In his solo book, Tincey, John (1990). Soldiers of the English Civil War (2): Cavalry. Oxford: Osprey. ISBN 0-85045-940-0. Tincey says that "The pike-armed dragoon was never adopted in England". In Gaunt, Peter (2019) [2014]. The English Civil War: A Military History. London: Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1-3501-4351-7.: "dragoons – troops who were mounted but who, having taken up forward positions, generally dismounted and fought on foot as musketeers". Wanklyn, Malcolm; Jones, Frank (2014) [2005]. A Military History of the English Civil War: 1642–1649. Abingdon: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-582-77281-6. also discusses them as exclusively musketeers, detailing what specific type of muskets they used. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.
  • "Parliamentarians had ten troops of cavalry and five companies of dragoons". Unless you provide numbers, this approaches pointlessness.
Nudge
Okay, had a crack at this. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "differed quite significantly" Delete "quite". Consider deleting "significantly".
  • "the Dutch Republic which had been the preeminent force at the start of the Thirty Years' War". True, but 1. As the Dutch were barely involved in the 30YW it is a bit misleading. 2. "had been the preeminent force at the start of the Thirty Years' War" ie 1618. That was 24 years ago and the "had been" wording suggests that at some time during the war this ceased to be the case.
I wasn't suggesting removing - I agree with your reasoning. But maybe tweak the phrasing?
Something like "..which was the preeminent force in the early 17th century.."? Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good.
Done. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while in defence the cavalry remained stationary" → 'while in defence the cavalry initially remained stationary'.
  • "attacked on the charge". Maybe "on" → 'at'?
Nudge
I'm not 100% convinced that this is an improvement, but nor does it look to make it worse, so sure. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were already in amongst" 1. For reasons which are beyond me, Americans don't like "amongst", suggest → 'among'. 2. Consider deleting "in".
  • Note a: purely a suggestion; in Battle of Dunbar (1650) I went with "They would advance in a tight formation, with their riders' legs interlocked, at no faster than a trot – in order to maintain formation" which maybe conveys the idea better?
Drat! OK.
  • "Essex's Lifeguard was a cavalry troop of cuirassiers". In what why did these "cuirassiers" differ from your generic description of cavalry above. And if they didn't, why mention it?
Your call. Given their peripheral role I would be minded not to; but you go with something like "Essex's Lifeguard was a cavalry troop commanded by Sir Philip Stapleton. They were considered the most senior cavalry troop in the Parliamentarian army, well armoured and mounted, and were responsible for guarding Essex."
Suits me. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the most senior cavalry troop" Americans are liable to take this to mean that the troopers were the oldest.
  • "drawn up into open order in the meadow" Is this what the source says? Would they not draw up (whatever that means - hint) in close order?
  • "they were faced with point-blank carbine fire from the dragoons". You said earlier that dragoons used muskets and that cavalry had carbines.
  • "allowing the Royalist cavalry time to prepare." Prepare what, over and above what you have already mentioned.
    • Rephrased to "giving the Royalist cavalry time extra time to prepare."
  • "Sandys' troop were routed". If "troop" is singular then "were" → 'was'.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "broke the Lifeguard, some of whom were carried away in the flight" I see the two parts of this as contradictory. "some of whom were carried away in the flight" suggests unwillingly; while "broke the Lifeguard" is an unequivocal statement that they fled.
  • "desertions, drownings and prisoners are taken into account". This is the first time you have mentioned any of this.
    • That's about all there is on it to be honest; there is a passing mention in one of the sources (I can't find which one at the moment) about the fleeing Parliamentarians riding into the river and drowning, but that's it. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Then mention desertions and drownings earlier - you could almost cut and paste your wording above. It sits ill being suddenly brought up in the summary.
In fact, I can't find anything else on this in my books. I have changed the wording to hopefully soften it slightly. Will keep digging, I swear I read more about it somewhere... Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like one of my source reviews!

And that's your lot. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Gog the Mild, I think I've responded to each now, a couple with questions. Let me know your thoughts. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That all looks good. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Powick_Bridge&oldid=983856572"